MUMBAI: Calling the e-mail obtained ultimate week from the Committee of Administrators (COA) that runs the BCCI as “misconceived and unsubstantiated”, batting legend Sachin Tendulkar has hit again at Vinod Rai & Co. For classifying him as “conflicted”.
In a 13-point letter to the ombudsman’s office and the COA despatched on Sunday, Tendulkar says he “fails to apprehend how the BCCI, after appointing him to the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC), can now hold its current stand that he is in a function of ‘tractable’ conflict of interest”.
Adding that the BCCI’s reaction does not make clear its stance (study: does no longer make its assertions clean), Tendulkar has requested the Supreme Court-appointed ombudsman and ethics officer DK Jain to call upon COA chairman Vinod Rai and BCCI CEO Rahul Johri to make clear their role.
Rai, on his part, has said that the BCCI will no longer participate in any listening to perform on this remember and the ball is now in Jain’s court to envision Tendulkar and the COA’s stand, which, assets say “can best be possible if all events are heard in man or woman and not via drafted emails”.
The COA had written an email to the ombudsman closing week, with a replica marked to Tendulkar, that the former India cricketer become in ‘tractable struggle’ by manner of occupying two positions – that of ‘mentor’ at IPL franchise Mumbai Indians and a member of the ‘defunct’ Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC). Tendulkar says the COA contributors “have proceeded totally on assumption” that Tendulkar is conflicted underneath Rule 38 of the Board’s constitution, however “have disclosed no foundation for intending on such an assumption”.
The COA had arrived at the realization remaining week that the notice (Tendulkar) is a ‘crew reliable’ in phrases of the IPL Operational Rules and is for this reason in war with the BCCI’s policies that constitute the term battle below Rule 38.
“The most effective way Rai can in addition clean the air in this subject is by using writing to the owners of the Mumbai Indians and corroborate that with what Tendulkar is announcing. That is, of the route, assuming that the COA will now not take Tendulkar’s word for it,” say assets monitoring traits.
In his Sunday reply to the BCCI e-mail, Tendulkar says that through failing to deal with the points raised in his preceding rejoinder, the COA has made “it aptly clear that there may be no battle of interest, tractable or otherwise” and proceeded on a completely exclusive parameter. In the preceding rejoinder, Tendulkar had specifically said that Rule 38(4)(j) is not applicable to him as he isn’t always inside the governance, control or employment of the Mumbai Indians.
Tendulkar unearths it unexpected that the BCCI, being the very authority liable for his empanelment to the CAC, is taking a position that he’s exposed to an alleged warfare, knowing nicely that he changed into named Mumbai Indians Icon publish his retirement in 2013, years prior to his appointment to the CAC, in 2015.
The definition of a Team Official as in keeping with the IPL Operational Rules is as follows: “Any man or woman who (a) has been provided an IPL Central Accreditation on behalf of a Team or Franchisee and (b) is a director, secretary, officer, control personnel, employee, instruct, physio (or other clinical personnel) or duly approved (specific or implied) agent of a Team or Franchisee or a representative to or other person serving in any potential for a Team or Franchisee”.
Tendulkar says a mentor or an ‘Icon’ isn’t included in the definition of a Team Official. “There is a fallacy in BCCI’s stance on the classification of the Notice as a ‘Team Official’. The Notice does not receive any reimbursement for the guidance supplied by him to Mumbai Indians and cannot be construed as a consultant,” says the response.
In Video: BCCI answerable for the current state of affairs: Sachin Tendulkar to Ombudsman
Download The Times of India News App for Latest Sports News.
Discussion about this post